December 12, 2017

God or Evolution?

By Luther Blackmon

Introduction

The reader will note that we make no effort here to deal with "Theistic Evolution," the theory that "God" created everything through evolution.

In the first place the length of the discussion did not permit it. But more important, to this writer a least, the theory is a compromise with unbelief. With some, no doubt, an effort to escape the "stigma" of "rejecting scientific progress." We have what we consider valid reasons for this statement and for rejecting completely that hypothesis: (1) if God could create by evolution, he could create instantly by divine fiat. There are no limitations on Deity. (2) It contradicts the only historic record of creation, the Bible. It ill becomes men to repudiate records written nearly four-thousand years ago when they have no better alternative than this. (3) Evolution is only an UNPROVEN theory. If anyone wants to dispute this statement, there is a standing challenge by men of recognized academic qualifications, to any scientist who will affirm the proposition: "Resolved that evolution has been scientifically proved." But do not hold your breath until the challenge is accepted.

No originality is claimed for the material here presented. We have followed the general course set by Paley in his "Natural Theology," with adaptations from many sources noted through the years. We desire no remuneration but the satisfaction that in the eyes of the readers it is a job well done, and the knowledge that some honest souls among our youth may be saved from the "Pied Piper" of a Godless theory, propped up with imposing names and titles.

The late Sir Arthur Keith, noted British anthropologist, said, "Evolution is unproved and improvable, and the only reason we accept it is because it is the only alternative to special creation, and that is unthinkable." The latter part of that statement could only be the product of a mind that had refused to examine the evidence for creation. To present to the readers some of that evidence, is the aim of this paper. I shall not discuss at length the technical pros and cons of the theory. That has been done by those better qualified than 1, and their works are available. But I shall show that "special creation," rather than being "unthinkable," is the only reasonable explanation for things as they are. By "special creation" I simply mean GOD CREATED.

But let us at least glance at this captivating theory. I think most everyone will admit that the following is a fair definition of the theory: "Evolution is the hypothesis that millions of years ago, lifeless matter, acted upon by natural forces, gave origin to one or more living organisms which have since evolved into all living and extinct plants and animals; including man" (Emp. mine L. B.).

Difficulties of the Theory

Even the definition presents questions which leading evolutionists frankly admit have no answers. First let us discuss lifeless matter. Whence came this matter? George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard University says, "Evolution . . . casts no light on the ultimate mystery, the origin of the universe, and the source of the laws of physical properties, of matter, energy, space and time" (Science, April 1, 1960 p. 972). 1 saw a sign in the Field Museum in Chicago which read: "All present hypotheses regarding the origin of the earth have proven inadequate." Some say, "It can be of no interest to us to know the origin of matter." This is purely bluff whistling in the dark. They are not interested in the origin of matter for the same reason that Fido is not interested in establishing himself as a great fighter by tackling a cage full of tigers. The whole theory of organic evolution can be laid beneath the daises on three points: (1) Origin of matter; (2) Origin of life; (3) Order in the universe.

I. WITH REGARD TO THE ORIGIN OF MATTER:

Either it was (1) Created, or (2) It is self existent (eternal).

If it was created, there is a Creator. This Creator has power - power to bring into existence that which had no previous existence. This is a quality only of Deity. Even if evolution were true, it does not claim this kind of power. It claims only to act upon that which already exists.

The Creator had also to be intelligent. The whole universe, the whole realm of nature shows evidence of design, contrivance, planning. This is the function of intelligence. Intelligence is found only in a person; not in things. Certainly not in lifeless matter! So, creation presupposes Creator; Creator presupposes intelligence; intelligence presupposes personality and personality presupposes God. This is q. e. d. (Much more will be said on this point further on.)

But, if there is no Creator, then the only alternative is eternal matter. And if matter is uncreated, self-existent, eternal, we have no choice but to attribute to matter the same qualities that are attributed to God the Creator. I did not say God the Savior, but God the Creator. One thing is sure, something is eternal. Nobody but a fool would deny an axiom. And it is axiomatic that: "From nothing - nothing can come." But something is, therefore something also was. If there were ever a time in the past when nothing existed, nothing ever could have existed. Something is eternal. Take your choice, God or matter. Either way evolution has no explanation but an improvable hypothesis.

II. ORIGIN OF LIFE:

The theory says that "lifeless matter," acted upon by natural forces, gave origin to minute "living organisms." Evolution makes no effort to explain how these "natural forces" came to be. That is in the field of origins, and "origins" is not the favorite after dinner subject for the Evolutionist. Just about every book you will read by these fellows has a very short chapter at the beginning which quickly disposes of "origins." Then he gets into his favorite playground, fossils. Give him a billion years and a basket of bones and he will have more fun than a monkey on a mile of grapevine. But do not mention origins.

Nevertheless, reluctant though they may be to face it, there was a FIRST CAUSE. You cannot have an endless chain of dependent causes. A chain with an infinite number of links would not support itself. It is the age-old question, "Which was first, the chicken or the egg?" There was one hen not hatched from an egg, or there was one egg not laid by a hen. The strange thing about evolution is that it admits the premise and then denies the conclusion. The Bible says GOD was the first cause. Evolution says, "I do not know what was first, but I know it was not God. That is not a scientific conclusion." Then he turns right around and says, "Living organisms came from lifeless matter." This is contrary to every known fact in this area of scientific research. Over a human embryo in the Field Museum, Chicago, you will see a sign which reads: "All life came from existing life."' But in spite of the lack of any evidence, many "scientists" stubbornly insist that, at least once in the past, life came from dead matter.

These same men would look upon you in scorn or pity if you should affirm your faith in the virgin birth. In their philosophy, no power could cause a life to begin in the warm womb of Mary. But life originated in cold, dead matter! How about that?

I suppose no theory could be so ridiculous or far-fetched or impossible that it would not be accepted by these people in preference to the simple statements, "In the beginning God created," and "God who made the world and all things therein . . . giveth to all life . . . and made of one blood all men" (Gen. 1:1; Acts 17:24-26).

From Minute Living Organisms All Plants and Animals Evolved

More assumptions without proof. If a fish evolved into a lizard (reptile) and then the reptile into a bird (and they say that is what happened - that the bird's nearest living relative is a crocodile. Biology of Birds, Lanyon, 1963, page 9), there should be fossils which died in transition from the fish to the lizard and from the lizard to the bird. But there are not. Even Darwin admitted that. He said, "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not find everywhere innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? . . . Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology surely does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain. And this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (Origin of Species, Vol. 6, Page 1) I could not suppress a smile here. How serious could an objection be? Reminds me of the fellow I knew who was going to have his shoes fixed. He needed tops and soles and heels. He had pretty good strings!

Darwin further said, "There are two or three millions of species on the earth . . . but it must be said today, in spite of all the efforts of all the trained observers, not one change of one species into another is on record" (Life and Letters, Vol. 3, Page 25).

One thing people should remember when they read the works of men like Darwin. They did not accept evolution because of the evidence for it, but because they were determined NOT to accept the evidence for creation.

Summing up then, when we analyze the definition of this theory we have (1) natural forces (the source of which they cannot explain), (2) acting upon lifeless matter, (the origin of which they admit total ignorance) (3) producing life from dead matter (which all scientific experimentation says is not so) (4) Which life evolved into all life which now is, (and no evidence of one specie or kind evolving into another). This reminds me of the fellow who was going to show me a picture of the Children of Israel crossing the Red Sea. He showed me a blank sheet of paper. I asked, "Where are the Children of Israel?" "They've already crossed over," he said. "Then where is Pharaoh?" "He ain't got there yet." "Alright, where is the Red Sea?" "Rolled back," he replied. Not exactly true to the facts. But neither is the theory.

God or Evolution

Thus far we have dealt with some reasons why we do not believe the theory of evolution. We now turn our attention to reasons why we DO believe that "God created the world and-all things therein . . . and gave to all life . . . and made . . . all men" (Acts 17).

Matter of Faith

The unbeliever tells us that God is a matter of faith with us. 'That is right. We can know the past only by memory or by testimony. Since there is no one around who remembers how things got started, we have to accept it on testimony. We present here some of the testimony that has produced our faith. We ask only that you read it, compare it with the testimony evolution offers, and see if you think it justifies the conclusions which we have reached.

Order in the Universe

William Paley was born in 1743. He antedated Darwin by about sixty years. Paley published a book which he called "Natural Theology." Dr. R. E. Clark, ' said of Charles

Darwin, "His life was one long attempt to escape from Paley" (Darwin Before and After. Grand Rapids, International Pub. 1958, p. 85). You have but to read Paley's work to understand why it bothered Darwin. The entire book was written to prove one fact: That the whole realm of nature, from man on down, shows evidence of intelligent design, planning and contrivance. If there was intelligence behind the universe and the life that is here, then there was a personality - and that means GOD. From this conclusion there is no escape.

Paley begins the book with an illustration. Passing through the "heath" he stubs his foot against a stone. For all he knows that stone was always there. But if he finds a watch he knows that it has not always lain there because it shows evidence of having been made. Made by intelligence, for a purpose.

The Cosmos Demands Intelligent Creator

The magnitude of the knowable universe and perfection with which it moves, staggers the imagination. This earth is one of the smaller planets that make up our solar system. There are nine of them and they all revolve around the sun. Jupiter is 1,300 times larger than earth and has 12 moons or satellites. Four of them revolve from east to west; eight revolve from west to east. But they never collide. Saturn has 9, of which Titan is the largest. Another of Saturn's moons is Phoebe. Phoebe is eight million miles from Saturn. Phoebe revolves from east to west and the others all go from west to east. Uranus has 5 that are visible, and they all revolve from east to west. Neptune has 2 that have been found. One revolves from east to west, the other' from west to east. Pluto, Mercury and Venus have no moons.

The earth has only one moon and it is 240,000 miles from earth. The sun is so large that if it were hollow like a coconut with a wall 100,000 miles thick, there would still be room inside for both the earth and the moon, 240,000 miles apart. If this seems like a lot of matter, look at this one: Although our Sun is 1,300,000 times larger than the earth, there is one star in the constellation of Orion, Betelgeuse that is 248 times larger than the sun. Antares in the constellation of Scorpio is 400,000,000 miles in diameter. So large that if it were hollow, both the earth and the Sun could be put inside at 93,000,000 miles apart. Our sun with its nine planets is only ONE solar system. They tell us there are more than 300,000,000 solar systems. The Milky Way is a galaxy of worlds. Think of all the space required for these millions of solar systems. We cannot measure the distance between these worlds by miles. We have no figures that run that high. We measure it in light years. The closest "fixed" star to this earth is so far away that the light which left it 3Y2 years ago is just now reaching it, traveling at the rate of 186,000 miles PER SECOND. If you have trouble comprehending an ETERNAL God or unending existence, try to imagine unending space! If unending space bothers you, try to imagine space with limits. What would be there?

The earth makes an annual trip around the Sun of more than 292 million miles, traveling at the speed of about 70,000 miles an hour. Did you ever look up the word "year" in the dictionary? Webster says, "The length of time it takes the earth to make one complete revolution around the sun; 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 45.51 seconds." Leap year takes care of the time above 365 days. That is why we have leap year. For all these thousands of years the earth has made this annual trip and is never off time one second. There was never a WATCH made to operate with such precision. Then some little "popgun" sticks his claws behind -his gallowses and says "that an eternal, self-existent God designed and created all this is not to be thought of." I am reminded of a song during World War II: "Ve heil! Phsst! Right in der Fuhrer's (Professor's) face."

(Next issue we will deal with anatomy and evolution.)

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XII: 2, pp. 10-13
November 1967

Share